linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irqchip/mips-gic: mark count and compare accessors notrace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87k24mipa1.fsf@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 08 Jun 2017 14:26:30 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Marcin Nowakowski <marcin.nowakowski@...tec.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/mips-gic: mark count and compare accessors notrace

On Thu, Jun 08 2017 at  3:06:23 pm BST, Marcin Nowakowski <marcin.nowakowski@...tec.com> wrote:
> gic_read_count(), gic_write_compare() and gic_write_cpu_compare() are
> often used in a sequence to update the compare register with a count
> value increased by a small offset.
> With small delta values used to update the compare register, the time to
> update function trace for these operations may be longer than the update
> timeout leading to update failure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marcin Nowakowski <marcin.nowakowski@...tec.com>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-mips-gic.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mips-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mips-gic.c
> index eb7fbe1..ecee073 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mips-gic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mips-gic.c
> @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ static inline void gic_map_to_vpe(unsigned int intr, unsigned int vpe)
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_CLKSRC_MIPS_GIC
> -u64 gic_read_count(void)
> +notrace u64 gic_read_count(void)

The attributes are usually placed between the return type and the
function name.

>  {
>  	unsigned int hi, hi2, lo;
>  
> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ unsigned int gic_get_count_width(void)
>  	return bits;
>  }
>  
> -void gic_write_compare(u64 cnt)
> +notrace void gic_write_compare(u64 cnt)
>  {
>  	if (mips_cm_is64) {
>  		gic_write(GIC_REG(VPE_LOCAL, GIC_VPE_COMPARE), cnt);
> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ void gic_write_compare(u64 cnt)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -void gic_write_cpu_compare(u64 cnt, int cpu)
> +notrace void gic_write_cpu_compare(u64 cnt, int cpu)
>  {
>  	unsigned long flags;

What guarantees do you have that some event (interrupt? frequency
scaling?) won't delay these anyway, generating the same missed deadline?
Shouldn't the code deal with these case and acknowledge that the
deadline has already expired?

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.